The 5th Grand Slam Chess Final was held in São Paulo, Brazil 24-29 September (1st half) and Bilbao, Spain 8-13 October 2012 (2nd half). The tournament used the Sofia Rules, which forbids agreed draws before 30 moves, and the "Bilbao" scoring system of 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss (though for ratings purposes the traditional scoring method is used). (1) Crosstable:

Previous edition: Grand Slam Chess Final (2011). The tournament in 2012 was the last Grand Slam event (although the term Grand Slam continued to be used). Later editions were composed of invitees by the Bilbao Masters organising committee: Bilbao Masters (2013).

perfidious: <Olavi> Byrne's result was hardly a one-off; in the following cycle at Biel 1976, he very nearly qualified again, finishing one-half point short of the triple playoff for the final two slots:

nok: <the complete inability of any of your players to progress in the 70's Candidates Matches>

That's only natural. Success in the WC cycle demands great self-confidence. When one guy is beating you 13-1 or 17-3, you know you'll never be WC. So you settle for usual super-tournament life (and it's not that bad).

perfidious: <Eggman> Yes: Huebner was (I think) another player who was unhappy with the composition of the fields vis-a-vis one another, believing Leningrad was clearly the tougher field (not that anyone gave Byrne a shot). This is perfectly understandable, as Leningrad had Korchnoi, Karpov and Tal, who entered Leningrad on a long unbeaten run. Then came the aforementioned Larsen, Huebner and Smejkal-who only fell from the running after throwing away a better position vs Karpov in the penultimate round.

drik: <nok: <the complete inability of any of your players to progress in the 70's Candidates Matches>
That's only natural. Success in the WC cycle demands great self-confidence. When one guy is beating you 13-1 or 17-3, you know you'll never be WC. So you settle for usual super-tournament life (and it's not that bad).>

You don't KNOW beforehand that 'one guy' is going to have a lifetime 13-1 or 17-3 plus score against you - so that is a truly riduculous reason for lacking motivation. You are saying that their premonitions of disaster against Karpov, unmanned them to such a degree that they lost matches to other players? Even if it were true, it would show pathetic lack of spirit. Kasparov beat Shirov 15-0 but that didn't stop Shirov beating Kramnik & qualifying to face his personal demon.

Did their supernatural fear of Karpov also explain their inability to enter the top 8 of the Elo ratings too?

drik: <badest: <dirk> That is one way to look at it. Now look at the players involved in the last 4 WC-matches.... I don't see many 20-year olds.>

It's the same way of looking at it. I'm not arguing that 20-year olds are inherently superior. I'm arguing that Karpov's generation (other than Karpov) was weaker than the generation that preceded it & weaker than the generation that followed it. The strength or otherwise of the current generation, has no bearing on this argument.

Lambda: Through most of the 20th century, you'll find 2 or 3 over-40s in the top 10. 1980 has 7, in which respect it is matched by 1930, which also has 7, but those two are definitely strong outliers. In recent years, just one over-40 has become more common.

Karpov's reign is quite strange in that it presides almost precisely over a temporary large blooming in the number of over-40s at the top, (including the most significant player; Korchnoi, to be undoubtedly a significantly better player in his 40s than he was before), but it's also strange in other ways;

He is most renowned as a winner of an incredible number of tournaments, but actually has a significantly better record in match play, averaging a better win-loss ratio against other strong players. Notably, he fought Kasparov virtually to a draw in match play, but lost to him twice in tournaments over the same period.

While we're thinking of Kasparov, Karpov does not actually reach his peak strength until after he has lost the world title! He seems at his absolute best from about 1986-1990.

nok: <You don't KNOW beforehand that 'one guy' is going to have a lifetime 13-1 or 17-3 plus score against you - so that is a truly riduculous reason for lacking motivation.>

It hardly matters whether it's gonna be 10-1 or 15-1 in the end; the point is that you're getting thrashed. By the time of Baguio, Karpov's score against Andersson was 79 %. Against Miles it was 81 %. Miles' first win came in 1980 with his famous "this guy is unplayable, so I might as well play 1.e4 a6!" inside joke.

Shirov won a match against Kramnik, yes -- but that's just one match. Huebner also won one against Portisch (and almost Smyslov, roulettes notwithstanding). Overall I doubt that Shirov's score against Kasparov did him any good, and indeed he hasn't been your steadiest performer.

nok: <While we're thinking of Kasparov, Karpov does not actually reach his peak strength until after he has lost the world title! He seems at his absolute best from about 1986-1990.>

That's debatable. Certainly, the arrival of Kasparov forced him to exert himself a bit more, which upped his nominal performance. But Dvoretsky e.g. noticed that he was a touch more approximative in his calculation here and there (in late 85 iirc).

celso chini: Hello from Brazil! Excelent debate! Thank you all! In my modest opinion karpov was the toughest chess competitor till 1985! he slautered the competition! he almost broke even kasparov! Anyway all of us have our preferences.......this is the reason I love chess! Abraço a todos! Best Regards!

drik: <Lambda: Through most of the 20th century, you'll find 2 or 3 over-40s in the top 10. 1980 has 7, in which respect it is matched by 1930, which also has 7>

What source do you use for 1930? Using Chessmetrics, Alekhine 38, Capablanca 42, Nimzowitsch 44, Bogolyubov 41, Rubinstein 48, Euwe 29, Kashdan 25, Gruenfeld 37, Spielmann 47, Tartakower 43. So 6 by my count, but consider how many of the 30-somethings of this generation died in the Great War and Spanish Flu pandemic. The 50's generation matured in one of the most stable and prosperous eras.

<but those two are definitely strong outliers.>

Which is basically my point - I'm not saying that those born around 1950 (with the exception of Karpov) are the weakest generation of all time; I'm just saying that they were weaker than the generation before & weaker than the generation after.

<Karpov's reign is quite strange in that it presides almost precisely...>

...with the retirement of a dominant world No.1 at the peak of his powers & the retirement for illness of a young and improving world No.3 (Mecking).

drik: <nok: By the time of Baguio, Karpov's score against Andersson was 79 %.>

From 1969 to 1977 Karpov and Andersson played 7 games, with Karpov +3 -1 =3. This is 64% by my reckoning & scarcely a result so disastrous as to cause Andersson to subconsciously lose to others, simply to avoid Karpov.

<Shirov won a match against Kramnik, yes... Overall I doubt that Shirov's score against Kasparov did him any good>

He qualified to face Kasparov; despite his -15 +0 record. So it weakens your theory that Andersson's -3 +1 record was too initimidating to permit qualification.

nok: <64 % by my reckoning> Right, Andersson's only win ever against Karpov came in 1975, which made the percentage a bit less embarrassing at that point. Still, 64 % is roughly Carlsen's score over Ivanchuk or Nakamura. Enough to shake a player's confidence, if you ask me.

<(Shirov) qualified to play Kasparov> As I said, Shirov won one match. The cycle was in shambles and he took his chance. But whether he'd been consistent enough to get through a 70s type Interzonal and set of Candidates is another matter.

I'm using Chessmetrics. (Specifically, I was looking at January 19?[05]) I can't find the month in 1930 when Gruenfeld and Kashdan were simultaneously present.

<Which is basically my point - I'm not saying that those born around 1950 (with the exception of Karpov) are the weakest generation of all time; I'm just saying that they were weaker than the generation before & weaker than the generation after.>

To talk about a "generation", you'd need a far wider sample size than just people who appear in the top ten. We're only looking at a small number of "super-players", so to speak. And we're observing that a cluster of them were born in the 30s, then there was a lean period, apart from Karpov, when the other best players being born were "not-quite-super" by our definition, until another cluster emerged (starting with Kasparov). Where people who couldn't reach their full potential due to illness or mental issues are excluded from this definition of a super-player.

It's a valid observation, but less relevant than it would be in most sports because of the wide range of ages at which chess players can excel. You wouldn't get someone like Korchnoi not being able to unleash his full potential _until_ he got into his 40s, or Lasker regaining his world #1 spot past 55 even against two of history's greatest, in something more physical.

drik: <nok: <64 % by my reckoning> Right, Andersson's only win ever against Karpov came in 1975, which made the percentage a bit less embarrassing at that point. Still, 64 % is roughly Carlsen's score over Ivanchuk or Nakamura. Enough to shake a player's confidence, if you ask me.>

Alekhine was -4 =4 or 25% against Capablanca before their match. Fischer was -3 =2 or 20% against Spassky before their match. Both still won comfortably, so I'm not convinced.

drik: <Lambda: I'm using Chessmetrics. (Specifically, I was looking at January 19?>
Ah! I was looking at a range of one year, centred around Jan 1930. But as you say, these two examples are outliers - where the norm is for the top 8 to be populated by players in their 20's & 30's.

<To talk about a "generation", you'd need a far wider sample size than just people who appear in the top ten. We're only looking at a small number of "super-players",>
I didn't define 'generation'. But in the context of Karpov's relative dominance at the top, I took it as read that we were only considering the very top ... since these are the only players that could have curbed his dominance.

<It's a valid observation, but less relevant than it would be in most sports>
Fair enough - but I'm not comparing it to other sports. I'm only comparing it to chess - in the generation before & the generation after.

drik: <brankat: <perfidious> You don't like to see a dead horse being beaten? :-)>

I think it is not the being beaten - but the being beaten to no purpose. After all, few of us had missed the fact! Still ... if the dead horse is still world champion, I'm sure he'll feel nothing, for more reasons than one.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.